If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

But now I wonder, have I dreamed about reading Janeth Gurthrie sitting so low in her car with the high windscreen that only the top of her hemet was visible?
Must dig in my hungnesses....
Thanks again....

Indyote

I dug in my Hungnesses,

Janeth Guthrie did indeed drive the car that Bettenhausen drove in 82. in '80 it was the 55 texaco star.
Bit I can't find that passage I remembered to have read. I probably made it up.

With this talk about the straight section of the wind screens on various vehicles helping to prevent distortion, I am once again thinking about Ferrari's screen and why they did not do that.

I can think of two explanations, one technical and more likely, the other more political and less likely.

The first is that they designed the screen in a way that would less disturb ariflow going into the engine which resulted in having to curve the screen more.

The second is that they deliberately designed the screen with more distortion to kill the idea so the FIA could get on with their halo design. (note that Ferrari was the only team to vote for the halo)

I think that looks good fwiw. Barely changes the appearance of the car at all from a distance.

This is the roll bar setup I have been arguing for all along. If I were an open wheel driver I would feel much safer with that.

No problems with sight and fans shouldn't complain. Really odd it's not being discussed.

Last edited by Stick500; 12-23-2017 at 02:51 PM.

"Charging a man with murder here was like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500."- Capt. Willard, Apocolypse Now
"Ain't nuthin' like [being with a woman], 'cept maybe the Indy 500."- Bunny, Platoon
"To alcohol! The cause of- and solution to- all of life's problems."- Homer J. Simpson

Interesting since the FIA/F1 tests showed to have similar issues. I wonder why Indycar continues to pursue the screen. I’m sure it’s not cheap. Oh well, they have a bunch of smart people, I’m sure they will figure it out.

It was posted on the Indycar Reddit that Marshall Pruett and Jay Frye have an update next week.

I also wanted to note that one of the replies claiming to work with one of the Indycar teams says lawyers have gotten involved and are requiring a device that hasn't been tested yet be added to the cars for this year.

Interesting since the FIA/F1 tests showed to have similar issues. I wonder why Indycar continues to pursue the screen. I’m sure it’s not cheap. Oh well, they have a bunch of smart people, I’m sure they will figure it out.

It's either this, or the ovals.

I believe the windscreen was mixed in F1 after Ferrari said "no" because their design was troublesome. Red bull ran a different design and I believe Ricciardo was OK with it.

It was posted on the Indycar Reddit that Marshall Pruett and Jay Frye have an update next week.

I also wanted to note that one of the replies claiming to work with one of the Indycar teams says lawyers have gotten involved and are requiring a device that hasn't been tested yet be added to the cars for this year.

Lawyers wouldn't push for untested/ unproven equipment. Whoever posted that bit must not like the solution.

I believe the windscreen was mixed in F1 after Ferrari said "no" because their design was troublesome.

Ferrari didn't say no. After a three-lap test run, Vettel (who was one of those opposed to the idea of a screen or halo from the get-go) said the quickly-done test windscreen that Ferrari came up with made him, "a bit dizzy."

Originally Posted by ambig88

Red bull ran a different design and I believe Ricciardo was OK with it.

Yep. It was a good design but the FIA was heavily favoring the halo by that point and that was pretty much the end of that.

Ferrari didn't say no. After a three-lap test run, Vettel (who was one of those opposed to the idea of a screen or halo from the get-go) said the quickly-done test windscreen that Ferrari came up with made him, "a bit dizzy."

Yep. It was a good design but the FIA was heavily favoring the halo by that point and that was pretty much the end of that.

False. F1 aborted the screen because testing raised concerns over its effectiveness after some early succes . The Halo continued to prove itself in testing. This is why it was chosen.

False. F1 aborted the screen because testing raised concerns over its effectiveness after some early succes.

What were those concerns, exactly? The only one I recall was some comment about how the windscreen might, in some rare instance, deflect a loose wheel/tire into the stands.

Ferrari's test example was not an optically corrected piece. With a bit more time and proper development it could have been much better. Red Bull's aero screen avoided the compound curves of Ferrari's test piece and, by virtue of its carbon fiber support frame, combined the benefits of the halo and a protective screen.

Originally Posted by Grizzlor

On the Frye/Pruett podcast, I believe he said they were continuing to analyze and redesign, as they found it was causing too many issues with sight on ovals.

Distortion Spike. Doesn’t matter oval or in the case for F1 road & street courses. Distortion is universal & the speeds the F1 cars are experiencing at some tracks like Monza rival oval speeds. No one on this forum has to be right, it’s just a conversation but it’s interesting with the deep pockets of F1 & with the emphasis with aesthetics with some teams F1 still chose the halo. I don’t know what some of the other concerns were with the F1 windscreen. The articles that I have read, F1 doesn’t disclose those concerns, maybe you know what those were. I understand my opinion doesn’t matter but I just don’t see how a piece of plastic will protect drivers from heavy oval impact. I understand IndyCar had concerns with the halo based on simulation however that should not stop them from at least testing one.

There was no mention of distortion in Grizzlor's post #39. In that post he referenced the podcast that said the ICS, "...were continuing to analyze and redesign, as they found it was causing too many issues with sight on ovals." You responded immediately thereafter in post #40 wherein you said, "Interesting since the FIA/F1 tests showed to have similar issues."

Again, there was no mention of distortion by Grizzlor. Remember, the concern about the windscreen tested by the ICS was that on ovals (particularly one such as Texas) drivers' sight-lines might be impacted by the top of the windscreen as they head through highly-banked turns. As such, your claim in post #40 that the FIA/F1 tests revealed similar issues seems, at best, questionable.

Originally Posted by Boweimer

False. F1 aborted the screen because testing raised concerns over its effectiveness after some early succes.

Again, can you show me these FIA "concerns" you are referring to? You now seem to be saying that FIA testing revealed problems with distortion. How many windscreens designs were formally tested by the FIA and how many (if any) showed problems with distortion?

The only on-track test I know of that resulted in concerns/comments re distortion was the three lap stint at Silverstone that Vettel did and he was the only one who said anything about distortion.

The Red Bull aeroscreen was designed in-house by the team. It was not an FIA design which may be why the FIA essentially ignored it. It appeared to combine the virtues offered up by the halo and a windshield/windscreen. After Ricciardo tried it out he said the following:

"In terms of visibility it was pretty good,' he said. 'The peripheral vision was fine, the way it is built it is sort of in line with the mirrors so you are not really hindered at all.

It is just a bit weird having the structure so that is something you have to get used to, but the pure visibility and seeing what was around you is fine. The points on track were pretty much unaltered so I think that was positive."

Here's the link to the article containing the quote along with some good photos and a static testing video of a tire being "shot" into the Red Bull aero screen.

Originally Posted by Boweimer

Distortion is universal...

It is? No matter what windscreen design? No matter what track configuration? No matter who the driver is?" The real truth is that distortion is not "universal" and that a properly designed windshield/windscreen can minimize or eliminate problems with distortion.

After all, how are all those cars that race at events like the Daytona and Le Mans 24 hour races able to run with their smallish, highly-curved windscreens?

Originally Posted by Boweimer

No one on this forum has to be right, it’s just a conversation...

Fair enough but remember you're the guy who started off post #46 by saying: "False."

My view is that no one on this forum has the right to purposely or carelessly spread misinformation, or just make things up, or offer up statements that cannot be backed up, and not face the possibility they might be questioned on what they've posted.

Originally Posted by Boweimer

I don’t know what some of the other concerns were with the F1 windscreen. The articles that I have read, F1 doesn’t disclose those concerns...

If that's true, how do you know, "the FIA/FI tests showed to have similar issues," as the ICS had with its windscreen design"?

Originally Posted by Boweimer

I just don’t see how a piece of plastic will protect drivers from heavy oval impact.

Is that the design brief and the sole criterion for a protective windscreen? If you are waiting for something that would have saved Dan Wheldon from his airborne impact with a pole, or that will spare all drivers from any, "heavy oval impact," I believe you're in for a long wait.

Originally Posted by Boweimer

I understand IndyCar had concerns with the halo based on simulation however that should not stop them from at least testing one.

I think the impact the halo would have on drivers' vision on ovals (looking through the aforementioned banked turns) make it a non-starter.

Again, there was no mentione of distortion by Grizzlor. Remember, the concern about the windscreen tested by the ICS was that on ovals (particularly one such as Texas) drivers' sight-lines might be impacted by the top of the windscreen as they ahead through highly-banked turns. As such, your claim in post #40 that the FIA/F1 tests revealed similar issues seems, at best, questionable.

The podcast didn't specify exactly whether the issue was light distortion. Frye was non-descriptive, and Marshall was vague and (as usual) rambling. However, I somewhat interpreted that it also might be vibrations at high speed causing issues, or if the screen gets dirty, etc. In any event, it sounded like the test drivers were not comfortable with visibility.

I'm sorry for the great confusion this has caused you. Thanks for catching those.

I cannot help but be curious about one thing, however. Have you ever posted anything like the length, complexity, or containing the sort of technical information (with sources noted), demonstrated by post #49? A quick glance using the "view forum posts" feature reveals a long list of fairly simple posts typically consisting of just one or two sentences.

I am curious to know if you think your corrections of other's (or is it others- seriously, who cares) misspellings and or grammar is actually helping to avoid confusion. It's a bit much to act indignant when someone points out something you routinely do to other peoples posts.